leftous wrote at January 31, 2018 at 5:46 PM
(edited at January 31, 2018 at 6:14 PM)

driving him out of his school, away from his friends ...
That dox has made a teenage edge lord - and probably his friends and family...

Wtf.. you realize this guy's goal was literally to destroy this immigrant's life and family right? He even directly mentions in the thread how the immigrant's family are probably all undocumented. This is ethnic cleansing.

Why are you so keen to defend this guy when this is exactly what he was doing to an innocent person?

leftous wrote at January 31, 2018 at 6:05 PM
(edited at January 31, 2018 at 6:05 PM)

I don't see how it is wrong to defend yourself, so I think it's an irrelevant question.

Do you think the "right" response is just idly submit when a racist comes to your door with a gun and tells you that they're throwing you out of your home? To me, the very minimal response and defense would be to tell my community and out this guy for being a bigotted asshole.

Could you not argue that true justice would only have been done if he had been deported himself? And thus justice remains undelivered?

That wouldn't be justice, it would be moving.

Could it not also have been argued that, several weeks detention and some re-education would have been justice, and thus the penalty (of being doxxed) was unduly harsh due to media attention?

You thinking that a white kid with every advantage in the world ruining the lives of a poor brown family for being brown should get a time-out is exactly why you are the last person to talk about justice for poc. You're choking on your own privilege.

No, I don't think it was harsh. Him being relocated from one school to another is nothing compared to a family being ousted from their home.

If it were up to me, I'd beat the shit out of the little weasel. All he had to do was relocate to another school. Big whoop.

He's hardly a toff attending Eton, so I wouldn't go as far as saying he has every advantage in the world, but will accept some of the spirit that your kicking.

I just did

But do you have the authority to declare that justice has been served? how do you represent the views of the 350 million Americans, in his community? Many of a similar political view to him would disagree with your view that justice has been served, (too harsh). Many with a similar political view to you would also disagree that justice has been served (too lenient).

You yourself, seem to provide a contradiction to your view that, Justice has been served, when you say he should have recieved corporal punishment?

(If the people are to form the police and authority on a case by case basis as per anarchacist doctrine, does that mean that an anarchacist society would condone state sanctioned violence and severe beatings as form of punishment? - So that we can measure out this punishment more preciesely to bring justice for a range of different crimes, should we perhaps use some form of impliment? say a whipp? I hear the threat of 100 lashes is quite good at keeping people in line)

So why do you, and 'the mob' have the authority to decide on what is just?

If some right wingers get upset because someone ripped down the statue of someone they like, do they then also have the right to enact mob justice?

how would this be organised? would people have to submit a form denoting their political views and if they match up with the political views of the 'establishement' they would be able to enact violent justice as they saw fit, but if their political views did not match up with the political views of the establishment, then they would be denied justice?

But do you have the authority to declare that justice has been served? how do you represent the views of the 350 million Americans, in his community?

Anarchists put no stock in 'authority' so your question is as meaningless to me as your claim to morality. I don't pretend to represent anyone other than myself.

Many of a similar political view to him would disagree with your view that justice has been served, (too harsh).

I couldn't care less. Those people don't speak for me.

You yourself, seem to provide a contradiction to your view that, Justice has been served, when you say he should have recieved corporal punishment?

Him getting punched for being a racist shit isn't 'corporal punishment'. I'm not a state. You hurt people that didn't do anything to warrant it, you open yourself up to direct action.

It's not a contradiction. Justice isn't some kind of definitive 1:1 thing. It comes in different flavors and at different ratios.

does that mean that an anarchacist society would condone state sanctioned violence and severe beatings as form of punishment?

Anarchists don't support states, genius. Our authority ends with our own 2 fists. It's not a 'form of punishment', it's an individual's chosen response to another individual's chosen action. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and the results of those actions.

There is no "anarchist society" in this world, the only anarchy we have is over our own minds. And punching a fascist that's doing real harm to innocent people is as anarchic and just an action as I can imagine.

So why do you, and 'the mob' have the authority to decide on what is just?

I have no authority and never claimed to.

should we perhaps use some form of impliment? say a whipp? I hear the threat of 100 lashes is quite good at keeping people in line)

Again. It's not punishment. It's shutting down a fascist so he stops hurting people less advantaged than him. Fists are all you need.

If some right wingers get upset because someone ripped down the statue of someone they like, do they then also have the right to enact mob justice?

If a man commits a wrong by chopping off your arm. is it right for me, while you are in hospital getting your new bionic arm fitted, to chop of his arm?

Unless you (or the people who did the doxxing), are themselves undocumented immigrants who risk deportation at the hands of ICE, then you are not defending youself. You are enacting revenge and retribution on behalf of someone else, thats something completely different.

You say and ask, while dodging my question, is it immoral to defend yourself. But it is not you that is being attacked.

so perhaps your question is, given the context. Is it immoral to take vengance against someone because they commited a wrong against a third party?

My first quiery to that, is to ask what and who gives you the authority to enact vengance? Who decides what is the right amount of vengance?

If a drunk driver speeds, blind drunk and kills your daughter. Am I morally justified in taking vengance out on him on your behalf? Is it up to me to determine that vengance? What if I decide the right thing to do, eye for an eye, is to kill his daughter? As the self appointed vengance taker, is it for me to decide? Or should I kill him? a life for a life?

leftous wrote at January 31, 2018 at 9:39 PM
(edited at January 31, 2018 at 9:48 PM)

Firstly, I am not dodging your question. I am disputing your assumptions. When you assume something (i.e. defending yourself or others is a moral wrong), this is called begging the question and is logically fallacious.

Secondly, your analogy (of chopping arms off) is false because that deals with an act of violence in retribution. Doxxing in this case is not an act of violence nor is it an act of retribution. Making it known who an attacker is can only be called a defense. Think of the way women have been outing sexual predators.

Thirdly, my beliefs are such that I do consider it self-defense and self-preservation when I defend the oppressed. This is because I don't want to be oppressed and attacked myself; permitting others to oppress others enables it against myself since I am offering that power to a group of bigots. Perhaps the best way to understand it is the poem First they came... As an anarchist, I accept no authority beyond my own as an individual.

Fourthly, your second analogy is also false for the same reason as first one. What you're describing is a violent act of retribution and not defense.

So by my count that is 3 logical fallacies and no real argument here. My only hope is that you're a troll.

emma wrote at January 31, 2018 at 5:01 PM
(edited at March 6, 2018 at 10:25 PM)

ＢＯＲＮ ＴＯ ＤＩＥ

WORLD IS A FUCK

鬼神 Kill Em All 1989

I am trash man

410,757,864,530 DEAD COPS

Because this is exactly what making it harder and riskier for DRUG DEALERS to organise does.

(capitals just to make edit obvious)

same logic, same outcome.
I would submit that all your are doing, is hardneing your enemy. When people come out with opposing views, it should be welcomed, as an oppertunity to set out your case.

I just find the whole, insta branding of people, most of whom are children, increadably reactionary, ugly, spiteful, ignorant, short sighted, and worst of all, deeply counter productive.

It makes the left look petty and authoritarian.

When 'joe average', who doesn't really care about politics, but still has a right to vote, comes to the conclusion that he will have more rights, freedoms and liberties under a right wing government, than under a left wing government... you are not making progress, and your not doing the left any favours